Hockey rinks in most of the world follow the International Ice Hockey Federation (IIHF) specifications, which is 61 metres (200 ft) × 30 metres (98 ft) with a corner radius of 4.2 metres (14 ft). The distance from the end boards to the nearest goal line is 4 metres (13 ft). The distance from each goal line to the nearest blue line is 17 metres (56 ft). The distance between the two blue lines is also 17 metres (56 ft).

North American
Most North American rinks follow the National Hockey League (NHL) specifications of 61 metres (200 ft) × 26 metres (85 ft) with a corner radius of 8.5 metres (28 ft).[3] The NHL attacking zones are expanded, with blue lines 20 metres (66 ft) from the goal line and 15.3 metres (50 ft) apart.[4]

Historically speaking, the reason Europeans tend to play on the larger sized ice is because bandy was the preferred ice team sport before "Canadian bandy" (original term for ice hockey in Europe) took over.

The Canadians are the ones that shrunk the size of the ice when they created "Canadian bandy" because large enough ice surfaces for traditional bandy pitches weren't common enough in Canada. Thus, with the smaller ice surface, the number of players had to be lowered to (from 11 to 7) And that's how hockey evolved from bandy. The top and bottom of the ball were later cut off to create the puck to keep it from getting airborne and leaving the playing surface, and the sticks grew longer as a result.

To avoid future disputes over what is the correct size of ice rink dimensions the simplest solution for the IIHF would be to set minimum (NHL-size) and maximum (IIHF-size) ice rink dimensions. Let the host provide whatever ice surface they want as long as it fits these specifications. If the host cities plan on building new rinks (for a major event like the Olympics) this will provide the host with a rink that will get maximum use afterwards.

The 2010 Vancouver Olympics set the precedent for such a policy when Vancouver was allowed to use NHL-size ice dimensions and the IIHF should just adopt this policy going forward.

Historically speaking, the reason Europeans tend to play on the larger sized ice is because bandy was the preferred ice team sport before "Canadian bandy" (original term for ice hockey in Europe) took over.

The Canadians are the ones that shrunk the size of the ice when they created "Canadian bandy" because large enough ice surfaces for traditional bandy pitches weren't common enough in Canada. Thus, with the smaller ice surface, the number of players had to be lowered to (from 11 to 7) And that's how hockey evolved from bandy. The top and bottom of the ball were later cut off to create the puck to keep it from getting airborne and leaving the playing surface, and the sticks grew longer as a result.

I have no idea about the history of the different ice surfaces, but bandy is primarily played outdoors on rinks the size of a soccer pitch or football field. Its hard to imagine that they had bandy in mind when European hockey rinks were designed. The only difference in size between European and NHL rinks is about 15 feet in width. Not enough to accomodate a bandy side!

Wasn't this a bit different in that since the arenas (Rogers and the other one) already existed and also IIHF obviously wanted to use them?

Exactly. It was a clear case where the host nation already had a world-class facility with ice rink dimensions between NHL and IIHF-size dimensions so the IIHF let the host nation use those dimensions. No alterations necessary. I am saying make this exception the rule in the future.

Historically speaking, the reason Europeans tend to play on the larger sized ice is because bandy was the preferred ice team sport before "Canadian bandy" (original term for ice hockey in Europe) took over.

The Canadians are the ones that shrunk the size of the ice when they created "Canadian bandy" because large enough ice surfaces for traditional bandy pitches weren't common enough in Canada. Thus, with the smaller ice surface, the number of players had to be lowered to (from 11 to 7) And that's how hockey evolved from bandy. The top and bottom of the ball were later cut off to create the puck to keep it from getting airborne and leaving the playing surface, and the sticks grew longer as a result.

Do you have a source for the statement "Canadians shrunk the size of the ice...because large enough ice surfaces for traditional bandy pitches weren't common enough in Canada"? Seeing as the first indoor hockey game occured in 1875 in Montreal's Victoria Skating Rink, and the first rules of the game published in 1877, it seems to be a concerted effort to develop a game that could be played on a small ice surface.

Both sizes have their pros and cons. NHL makes for a faster paced game. IIHF size might be better to fit the size and speed of today's players, cutting down on injuries.

I think the international ice also permits more varied player types - in the small rink player size is clearly more important and the players more uniform. The best national teams also play spectacular hockey on the large ice: it's amazing to see, say Canada-Russia on international ice, where Russians are more able to use their traditional creative style.

I think it's supposed to be 3 arenas with 30 x 60. Hartwall Areena, Barona Areena in Espoo and Turkuhalli (whatever they call it theses days). All the arenas were listed at Jatkoaika.com messageboards somewhere.

I think the international ice also permits more varied player types - in the small rink player size is clearly more important and the players more uniform. The best national teams also play spectacular hockey on the large ice: it's amazing to see, say Canada-Russia on international ice, where Russians are more able to use their traditional creative style.

When you have the best players versus the best players, the hockey should be very good regardless of what sized rink they play on.

NHL ice right now, with the way the rules are being enforced (not calling much), it favors the bigger player. Go to the larger ice, with more room, it would favor the better skating player, who would likely be smaller.

I would like to see the same rule in the NHL that we have in Finland, a team could change its rink size if it wanted, to work in favour of their team / player material. Jokerit just changed their rink from 28m to 30m two years ago. They also have that 26x30 in start of every year for like 5 SM-Liiga games so the shift is no problem, wouldn't the most skilled teams maybe like Detroit just use more of those player skills with 28x30 for example? And teams with no skill could go with that minium 26m playin just physichal and trap defense. Would be fun to see some differences.

The 2010 Vancouver Olympics set the precedent for such a policy when Vancouver was allowed to use NHL-size ice dimensions and the IIHF should just adopt this policy going forward.

Actually the precedent was already set with the 2008 World Championships in Quebec. The IIHF also allowed NHL-size ice in the 2009, 2010 and 2011 World Junior Championships and the 2009 U18 Championships. I think they will stick with the policy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by EbencoyE

Historically speaking, the reason Europeans tend to play on the larger sized ice is because bandy was the preferred ice team sport before "Canadian bandy" (original term for ice hockey in Europe) took over.

The Canadians are the ones that shrunk the size of the ice when they created "Canadian bandy" because large enough ice surfaces for traditional bandy pitches weren't common enough in Canada. Thus, with the smaller ice surface, the number of players had to be lowered to (from 11 to 7) And that's how hockey evolved from bandy. The top and bottom of the ball were later cut off to create the puck to keep it from getting airborne and leaving the playing surface, and the sticks grew longer as a result.

I have my doubts about that.

1) I don't think the original term for ice hockey in Europe is "Canadian bandy", as far as I know it's the other way round: What we know today as "Bandy" was simply called "Hockey" and when the Europeans learned that the Canadians had replaced the Ball with the Puck, they called this new Version "Canadian Hockey".

2) Was there even something like "the traditional bandy pitch" back in 1886 when the Amateur Hockey Association of Canada was founded? Or in 1908 when the LIHG/IIHF was founded? I think people - Bandy and Hockey players alike - were just happy to have any ice sheet to play on, never mind the size. There was no traditional pitch: who would have been able to observe any norm with the scarcity of articifial rinks anyway? Accordingly, the size of the rink varied considerably in the early LIHG/IIHF tournaments: 56x18 meter in the 1920 Olympics, 75x45 meter in the 1924 European Championships.

I have no idea about the history of the different ice surfaces, but bandy is primarily played outdoors on rinks the size of a soccer pitch or football field. Its hard to imagine that they had bandy in mind when European hockey rinks were designed. The only difference in size between European and NHL rinks is about 15 feet in width. Not enough to accomodate a bandy side!

Eh... in my town they play Icehockey ofc, but they also play that game where the litle blue ball is used instead of puck, and sticks are shorter and litle different, but otherwise its much like hockey. I think thats bandy.

Eh... in my town they play Icehockey ofc, but they also play that game where the litle blue ball is used instead of puck, and sticks are shorter and litle different, but otherwise its much like hockey. I think thats bandy.

Should there be one standard size? It's strange that a major global sport has different rink sizes but I don't think the NHL should automatically defer to the IIHF.

Football has different field-sizes as well. So it's not like hockey is the only major sport.

While UEFA regulates fields to be 105x65m for European competition, FIFA allows for fields to be 100-110m in length and 64-75m in width for international matches and 90-120m length and 45-90m width in any other competition (provided length and width aren't the same, so no 90x90).

I would like to see the same rule in the NHL that we have in Finland, a team could change its rink size if it wanted, to work in favour of their team / player material. Jokerit just changed their rink from 28m to 30m two years ago. They also have that 26x30 in start of every year for like 5 SM-Liiga games so the shift is no problem, wouldn't the most skilled teams maybe like Detroit just use more of those player skills with 28x30 for example? And teams with no skill could go with that minium 26m playin just physichal and trap defense. Would be fun to see some differences.

This would be kind of neat. Like you can do with with MLB stadiums, teams choose outfield and foul territory dimensions, and wall layout to an extent, they can also model the stadiums in certain ways to create wind channels. A team can specialize around that design, but in the long term it can hurt them if they become too specialized.

Personally I prefer NHL size, the problem with larger ones is it gives too much room to play "keep away" with the puck, you see it sometimes in 4v4 OT in NHL games, where a team will keep retreating and the opposition can't aggressively forcheck because it creates too much of an opening to move the puck through.

1) I don't think the original term for ice hockey in Europe is "Canadian bandy", as far as I know it's the other way round: What we know today as "Bandy" was simply called "Hockey" and when the Europeans learned that the Canadians had replaced the Ball with the Puck, they called this new Version "Canadian Hockey".

2) Was there even something like "the traditional bandy pitch" back in 1886 when the Amateur Hockey Association of Canada was founded? Or in 1908 when the LIHG/IIHF was founded? I think people - Bandy and Hockey players alike - were just happy to have any ice sheet to play on, never mind the size. There was no traditional pitch: who would have been able to observe any norm with the scarcity of articifial rinks anyway? Accordingly, the size of the rink varied considerably in the early LIHG/IIHF tournaments: 56x18 meter in the 1920 Olympics, 75x45 meter in the 1924 European Championships.

I think you are confusing the Canadian game with the Russian game. The Russian game of "Russian hockey" was very similar to bandy, but developed separately in Russia, while Bandy was developed in England and the Netherlands.

Bandy was originally called "hockey on the ice" in reference to field hockey where the sport comes from, but was referred to as bandy much earlier than the importation of the Canadian game to Europe. Though of course, this varies among different parts of Europe. The rules and classification of the sport of bandy were established in England in 1882.

You're right that there is no official size for bandy pitches either, but traditionally they are much bigger than hockey rinks - so the preference by Europeans to use larger rinks than Canadians did in the early days of the sport is understandable. Even Canada didn't have a regulated rink size back then.

There is also a sport known as "rink-bandy" which is essentially bandy played on a hockey rink. This variation was popular during the early days of hockey in Europe, as larger bandy pitches weren't necessary and allowed for greater participation of both rink-bandy and "Canadian bandy". This obvious link between the two games is further evidence that the early European development of ice hockey was greatly influenced by the sport of bandy - leading to larger ice surfaces on average in the European game.